>>128061177
>You want to make this some deep semantic philosophical discussion?
we have a disagreement about what certain terms mean, naturally semantics is going to come up
>Most people know what it means to "get" something.
that's just an appeal to common sense
>To recognize what it is trying to communicate.
if that's what it means to "follow" a song, you're still not saying much of anything. how do you know in a given instance where you enjoy listening to a song that you "recognize what it is trying to communicate", as opposed to one or more different, unconscious processes going on that result in your enjoyment, and that you aren't simply rationalizing your enjoyment? if your evidence is the enjoyment itself, then all you're saying is "to "get" a song is to enjoy it" which just means you're saying "enjoying a song = enjoying a song" which is a hollow definition.
>Yes
then that can't be part of your definition, if it's not necessary
>I don't have to. I don't have to explain the mechanisms of human perception to you. I don't have to prove things that are recognizable intuitively.
no one said you had to, but by the same token if you can't properly explain something without a circular definition, then there's no reason to assume you actually understand what you're talking about
>it's ability to perceive and remember patterns. As well as building a vocabulary of patterns you've heard before. There's a reason repeated listening makes it better
then how do you explain people who have a favorite artist but don't like every single one of their songs/pieces - even after multiple listens? to stick with Coltrane, presumably you'd agree there are people who like a large majority of his work, but not every single song. and even on one of their favorite albums there are bound to be songs they aren't particularly moved by: you're saying that for those few songs they somehow don't have the ability to perceive and remember the patters and see how they compare to his other songs?
